Complaint to the CGPJ: A strategic shift
Carles Puigdemont and Antoni Comín have taken their legal battle a step further by filing a formal complaint with the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) against Judge Pablo Llarena, who is in charge of the case known as ‘Procés’. This action reflects a new strategy in their attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the judicial process affecting them.
Arguments supporting the complaint
The complainants claim that there has been an ‘unjustified lack of attention and delay’ in the processing of appeals related to the amnesty law. According to documents to which El Món has had access, the delay in the resolution of special case number 20907/2017 has been constant and deliberate, which has led to the filing of several appeals to speed up the process.
The defense argues premeditation
Puigdemont and Comín’s defence team, led by lawyer Gonzalo Boye, has described the delay as a premeditated act that not only affects their clients, but also involves the public prosecutor’s office and the state’s legal services. This context raises questions about the impartiality of the process.
Consequences of judicial delay
The complaint highlights that more than thirty days without a resolution on the appeals is a significant aggravating factor. The seriousness of the situation is intensified because both face provisional measures that affect their personal freedom, such as arrest warrants.
Contrast in judicial time management
A critical point of the complaint is the apparent lack of urgency on the part of Judge Llarena in resolving these appeals, especially in contrast to his swift action to suspend his vacation in order to supervise Puigdemont’s arrest, an operation that ultimately did not materialize on August 8.
Future perspectives and reflections
This new development in the case of Puigdemont and Comín not only reinforces the resistance of the Catalan exile, but also raises questions about the functioning of the judicial system in Spain. The complaint filed with the CGPJ could open new avenues of analysis and discussion about the application of the amnesty law and the capacity of the judicial system to handle politically sensitive cases.